Seriously? It has to be against the law. The law defines specific actions as illegal and things that are not specifically described as being illegal are legal. That’s what the concept of “the exception proves the rule” means. If the law says you cannot drive more than 65 miles an hour, then it is legal to drive less than 65 miles an hour. If you are allowed to keep animals as pets unless they are endangered, you can have a non-endangered animal as a pet. If it’s illegal to have sex with a person under (say) 16 or expose your genitals to them or touch their genitals or various other body parts, then you can do those things with someone older than 16 and you can touch the non-proscribed body parts of someone under 16. This kind of law can look overly complicated, but the complications exist for good reason.
The dictionary definition of the word isn’t used if the word is defined in the statute, or in the caselaw interpreting the statute.
It depends.
We start with this proposition: every single act is legal.
Then we write laws that prohibit certain acts.
There is a history of acts made illegal by years of court actions and interpretations. This is called the common law. Some states start with the common law, and then add additional criminal acts, and modify the common law.
In the 1960s, there was a movement to get states to homogenize their criminal laws. The result was a draft called the Model Penal Code, which some states adopted… And then later changed. But in general, 49 of the 50 states use either the common law, or the Model Penal Code, with their own slight changes.
So the answer to your question is potentially different in every state.
In Florida, where the instant situation arose, the line is an overtly lewd and lascivious act… that is, an act which a reasonable observer would identify as lewd and lascivious.
Note that the reasonable observer cannot peer into the head of the actor. This is both good and bad; the actor cannot claim that his fetish is toes and therefore his touching of genitals was not lewd since it doesn’t turn him on. The reasonable observer can conclude that touching of genitals is lewd, no matter what the actor claims.
By the same token, even though the actor may become sexually excited by socks, the reasonable observer cannot conclude that asking girls to wear socks is, per se, lewd.
The age of the accused vs. the age of the girls tells me the guy is about an inch away from being a child molester. If he is confronting girls at random for this fetish, how far is he from dragging one into an alleyway for a more, um, personal interaction? I’d say the best bet, since he has not in fact molested any girls, is get him in treatment to see if he can be pulled away from it, though I know the treatment record for child molesters is fairly dismal. I’m more concerned about the safety issue vs. the legal definitions. That said, it may be difficult to compel him legally if he cannot be charged.
So foreplay with someone under 16 is legal.
^ You were given a link in the first response in this thread. From that link:
How long are you going to play this game?
We cannot presume that this will progress into a worse crime.
The issue appears to be a perception of normality of perception (as described in Brickers PP)
So if one has a unique sexual desire, because it isnt obvious, they have a carte blanche with kids, even when admitting to their fetish
Sure, if you define foreplay in such a way that it doesn’t consist of any kind of sexual touching or exposure or anything else illegal - which makes me wonder if you can call it foreplay in the first place.
Not sure if it has a statutory definition or not, but according to AH, its
Sexual stimulation preceding intercourse.
I know what foreplay is, thank you very much. And no, it does not appear to have a statutory definition in this context. There’s nothing in the law about “foreplay.” There are laws about sex and touching and exposure, none of which this guy apparently broke. I’d be happy to see him prosecuted for that if somebody could explain how it would work, but you can’t start with "well, it was sexual for him and then work your way backward to make it a violation of the law. His actions - not his thoughts - have to violate the law as it’s written.
No, what they can’t do is clearly spelled out in the applicable statute, which I linked in post #2. It does not appear, from the facts presented, that this person violated that statute. If you happen to have a link to another statute you think may apply, kindly provide it.
Well, § 800.04(5), Fla. Stat., prohibits an actor from touching the breasts, genitals, genital area, buttocks, or the clothing covering those areas, when the victim is under 16.
Is that what you mean by foreplay?
Between the research I’ve done for Zimmerman and now this thread, I may just take the Florida Bar.
And spend the rest of your career dealing with insane cases like this?
Then again if you’re already dealing with them I guess you may as well make some money for your trouble.
The action of asking the children to wear the clothes for his sexual pleasure would seem to me to be the key. If those were fishnets, high heels, halter tops, would it be an issue? If the clothes were bikinis, would it be an issue?
I just make visit a Florida bar…
Foreplay may include what you asked, but it isn not limited to that
dngnb8, we talked about that yesterday. It’s not illegal just because it’s creepy. It has to violate some part of the statute, which you can read in this thread.
We cannot assume such for legal purposes, but for practical purposes we’d be pretty damn dumb not to consider the possibility. Who knows how long this guy spent just sitting on benches and looking at little girl’s socks before he made his request? How far beyond that will he go? We don’t know. But when he starts talking and interacting with little girls to feed his fetish, he’s taken kind of a big step. He might never go beyond that, he might go dragging girls into alleyways, we just don’t know. I know I sound like one of those “WHO’LL THINK OF THE CHILLLDRUNNN?” types who pop up every time there’s a chance to commit censorship, but the difference between them and me is I"m advocating a low-level approach to a specific individual, not advocating a shotgun approach to killing flies. I have not asked that he be jailed or fined, just pointed in another direction, if possible. It probably is not possible, from all that I’ve read, but how you gonna feel if this guy escalates?
Having played devils advocate in this thread for a few days now, I understand your issue. We as a society talk about “warning signs”. The issue that has been eloquently communicated by others is about about our Rights. The more laws we have, the more we have Government in our lives. While what you talk about may protect these kids from him, it also may create situations where there is no risk what so ever, and then you get the Law Enforcement Harassment chatter.
Ive always said there is a cost to Freedom, and sometimes the cost is an innocent life. It isnt planned that way, it just happens that way.
I’m not seeing where you advocated for either side. I don’t think that term means what you think it means.
Good hypo.
If the fishnets, high heels, etc., were overtly sexualized, so that it was wildly inappropriate for a child to wear them, I would say he could be charged with a violation of § 827.04(1), Fla.Stat., which provides:
As you can see,though, this reasoning would not extend to socks.
Fine. Then explain precisely and specifically what act or acts you’re thinking of, and I’ll tell you if, in my opinion, the act is legal.
Another update: I found a really similar case in California where a man was given a life sentence for sucking on boys’ toes. In 2003 Trenton Veche was found guilty on 25 felony counts of lewd acts with minors for nibbling on the toes of two dozen boys ages 8 to 11 while he worked as an after-school program supervisor. The interesting part:
A jury thought the answer to the last question was “yes.”